About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
contravention of the fourth amendment and complete contravention of the law at that time. as i'm sure and many of my colleagues will certainly recall this was revealed to the american public four years later when it was reported in "the new york times" in 2005. and in response after years of back and forth contentious debate, congress passed the fisa amendments act, the bill that we are considering on this floor today. we're considering a reauthorization. this law gave the government new surveillance authorities, but it also included a sunset provision to ensure that congress examines where the law is working and the way it was intended. now, the debate we're having right now on this floor is that reexamination. i will just note that i think it's unfortunate that we're doing this at the last second. we have known that this intelligence law is going to expire for years. it was laid out for a multiyear span. and certainly, it is irresponsible for this chamber to be debating this bill under a falsely created pressure that it needs to be done without any amendments in order to match the bill from
at the university of colorado law school. she talked about gender discrimination cases and her own experiences as a woman law school graduate in the early 1960s. this conversation is about an hour, 15 minutes. .. >> we are so grateful to have you here, phil, for all your work. [applause] >> we have several regions here, two of whom are grads of our fine law school, michael and jodi your and irene is here also i believe. and any other regions are here, we thank you for all your support and your spirit. we do very much believe in engaging with the community come and we want to continue to do so in so many ways. i would echo what melissa hart said, and very importantly acknowledge the leadership in terms of the energy she brought to the white center, this lecture was her brainchild. the constitution of the activities were brainchild, and recognizing that under the board of regents, the chase award given from the president's office given to melissa hard for her work in community service. so i want to acknowledge mullah so hard. [applause] -- melissa hart. >> and finally, all of you make such a dif
and graduation. it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scoff law at tuesday among college officials. papers over the prop of why so many latinos and blacks are academically competitive, and it gives states and schools involved in unsavory activities -- like decides which racial minorities will be heard and which ones not -- and how much blood is needed to establish group membership. and i didn't want even mention mismatch. -- i didn't even mention mismatch. [laughter] the mismatch book, in addition to o giving chapter or and verse and ample, irrefutable documentation for why this is a real problem also touches on some of these other problems that i've listed too. you add all those up, okay, and it seems to me that it's a lot stronger than the educational benefits from these random interracial conversations we might be having more of if we use racial preferences in admissions. okay. well, let me wrap up with one sort of happy note, but then one not so happy note. it seems to me -- and i think it ought to seem to the justices -- that one reason why we ought to end this nonse
of goes to at what's at the heart of constitutionalism and rule of law, and looking back at the list of things that you listed. in the course of that conversation after a long discussion about the constitutionalism, a center. essentially blackmun turns to moyers and says it's really the preamble that breathes life into the constitution. and i wondered whether that's a point of view that you hold and whether you think it has relevance in the situation we're talking about now. >> , preamble, we the people and united states, et cetera, i used to be able to quote it, i don't think i can now. anyway, it's written down. and the preamble is important saying we the people. but is not the only thing. and i say that because i do think, i had a very interesting conversation in china, i thought. i've gone there twice. the first time was a few years ago, maybe eight or 10, when we went to beijing and then we went to shanghai. and in shanghai we are asked to meet with a group of businessm businessmen, and these businessmen have all been involved in the.com. they lost a lot of money. most of them h
meaningful oversight. beyond the straightforward application of the law to specific and sometimes highly classified circumstances, fisa court rulings may include substantive interpretations of governing legal authorities. as is true in every court called on a construed statutory text, fisa applications are influential in determining the contours of the government' surveillance authorities. unlike specific collections which are properly classified in many instances, i believe that the fisa court's substantive legal interpretation of statutory authorities should be made public. a hallmark of the rule of law which is a bedrock principle upon which our nation is founded, mr. president, is that the requirements of law must be made publicly available, available for review, available for the scrutiny of the average american. the merkley-lee amendment establishes a cautious and reasonable process for declassification consistent with the rule of law. its procedures are limited in three key respects: first, the pathway for declassification applies only to the most important decisions that include
that the affordable care act will begin to become fully finalized to law over the next couple of years. we keep hearing those on the conservative side or republicans raise concerns about what we'll do for the country. what is your view. now you're not part profit excess. you can speak more freely. is it going to be a good thing for the country? >> yes, it will. for one reason, as an example, right now we have 50 some billion dollars a year of uncompensated care. that means people don't have insurance don't have medicaid, medicare or private insurance, don't have military coverage or anything like that, so they are not insured. they have access to health care in the emergency rooms. if they taken in and can't pay and don't go through a bankruptcy or something like that, that costs that care doesn't just go away. it's shifted over to the rest of the us who have insurance. that's $50 billion. now, you stop and think about that it could be as much as $1500 per person who pay for those who don't. when you have everybody in the system, all insured one way or another, that uncompensated care goes away
response to the recommendations i sponsored a bipartisan law the secure in the sea construction and counterterrorism act of 1999 that authorized $4.5 billion over five years for the acquisition of the u.s. diplomatic facilities and presidents and other structures located in close proximity of such facilities and provide major security enhancements to u.s. diplomatic facilities. that beefed up security requirements for the u.s. diplomatic securities including fresh assessments come emergency action plans, security environment fruitless, site selections, setbacks, crisis management training, diplomatic security training, a rapid response procedures, emergency equipment and increase anti-terrorism training and africa. i read the new arb and this is the same thing. bipartisan appropriation bills in 1999 have funded the department of overseas building operations and has completed 95, at least 95 new diplomatic facilities and has an additional 45 projects in design for construction. so much has been done. obviously we can always do better. i would note parenthetically there are now at
to exercise a modest measure of real oversight over this intelligence surveillance law. here's why: colleagues, it is not real oversight when the united states congress cannot get a yes or no answer to the question of whether an estimate currently exists as to whether law-abiding americans have had their phone calls and emails swept up under the fisa law. that is the case today. colleagues, it is not real oversight when the congress cannot get a yes or no answer to the yes of whether wholly domestic communications between law-abiding americans in this country have been warrantlessly intercepted under the law. that is the case today. colleagues, it is not real oversight when national security agency leadership states in a public forum that the agency does not keep dossiers on millions of americans, and yet they will not give the congress a yes or no answer as to whether the agency collects any sort of data on millions of americans. that is not the case today. so, mr. president, what this amendment does is it gives us the opportunity to do real oversight, real oversight by getting yes or no answ
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8